Well in the case of attributions of artworks, these things tend to go back and forth a lot, so museums take a fairly pragmatic approach when they invent a "pseudo-artist". They will attribute something like a previously attributed B to "school of B" or "follower of B" and sort it as B for all other intents and purposes. In the creator field of the artwork template on Commons we have the "after" qualification, which softens the attribution quite a bit - are you looking for something like that?
2014-05-05 15:43 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca <[email protected]>: > Jane, this info is in Wikipedia. For instance see: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltzes_(Chopin) > > N. 17 was attributed to Chopin (Kobylańska and others), Chomiński says that > claim is spurious. And that is just one of many examples. > According to Wikidata principles we should collect both statements and let > the reader decide which source to believe. > I can enter Kobylańska's claim, but I have no way to enter Chomiński's > counter-claim. > > I think it is important to be able to model that information because that > is how sources act, they don't limit themselves to make "certain" claims, > they also make "uncertain" claims or counter other claims (even if they > don't offer better ones). > > > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Jane Darnell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hmm, I guess I am still not getting it - both of your examples >> wouldn't make it into one of my Wikipedia articles, and I would >> probably remove them from an existing article if I was working on it. >> If it's not factual enough for Wikipedia, then it's not factual enough >> for Wikidata. >> >> I recall a situation where painter A was documented as a pupil of >> painter B who according to the sources died when painter A was just a >> young boy of 8. Either very young children could become pupils of >> other painters, or the original document got painter B mixed up with >> someone else. Either way it is highly doubtful that painter A was >> strongly influenced professionally by the art of B. I would probably >> include this info on Wikipedia but would not bother to include it on >> Wikidata. >> >> 2014-05-05 14:46 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca <[email protected]>: >> > Hi Jane, >> > >> > No, I was not referring to books in particular, but of course it could >> > be >> > applied to books as well, and to works of art, and to many things in >> > general. >> > I agree that the statement is valuable and that it should be included, >> but >> > I don't know how to represent it. >> > >> > Following your examples, what I am trying to represent is not what you >> say, >> > but instead: >> > a) uncertainty: "it is hinted that Pete was the son of Klaus, but I >> > have >> no >> > conclusive proof" >> > b) rebuttal: "Source A says that Pete was the younger brother of Klaus, >> > I >> > can disprove that (but I cannot provide an alternative)" >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Micru >> > >> > >> > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Jane Darnell <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> David, >> >> I assume you are referring to books. The same is true for works of >> >> art. The reason why these statements are still valuable is because it >> >> is an attribution based on grounds determined by someone somewhere and >> >> based on that loose statement alone are therefore considered of >> >> interest. You basically make a decision to include the statement or >> >> not, as you see fit. >> >> >> >> When it comes to people, one source may say "Pete was the son of >> >> Klaus", while another source says "Pete was the younger brother of >> >> Klaus". I think it's just a question of picking one on Wikidata to >> >> keep the family aspect of the relationship (whichever it is) intact, >> >> and sooner or later one or the other will be chosen. It's a wiki after >> >> all. >> >> Jane >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-05-05 11:24 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca <[email protected]>: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > I'm having some cases where a work has been attributed to an author >> >> > by >> >> > a >> >> > source, but the source itself says this attribution is "dubious", or >> it >> >> is >> >> > contesting a previous attributions as "spurious". >> >> > >> >> > As I see it, the rank of the statement is not deprecated (in fact it >> is >> >> > "normal" or even "preferred"), but I have no way of representing >> >> > this >> >> > "claim uncertainty" or "claim rebuttal". >> >> > >> >> > Is there any hidden parameter for this or should it be addressed >> >> > with >> a >> >> > qualifier? >> >> > >> >> > Cheers, >> >> > Micru >> >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Etiamsi omnes, ego non >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> > > > > -- > Etiamsi omnes, ego non > _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
